
\begin{table}[H]
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{tabular}{l D{.}{.}{3.5} D{.}{.}{3.5} D{.}{.}{3.5} D{.}{.}{3.5}}
\toprule
 & \multicolumn{1}{c}{External Efficacy} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Satisfaction with Democracy} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Internal Efficacy} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Political Interest} \\
\midrule
Group 2                 & 0.20       & -0.01      & 0.53^{***} & 0.36^{**}  \\
                        & (0.16)     & (0.16)     & (0.20)     & (0.17)     \\
Wave 3                  & -0.23      & -0.18      & 0.23       & 0.11       \\
                        & (0.16)     & (0.16)     & (0.20)     & (0.17)     \\
Group 2 $\times$ Wave 3 & -0.13      & 0.14       & -0.39      & -0.23      \\
                        & (0.23)     & (0.23)     & (0.29)     & (0.24)     \\
(Intercept)             & 2.92^{***} & 3.75^{***} & 3.00^{***} & 3.22^{***} \\
                        & (0.11)     & (0.11)     & (0.14)     & (0.12)     \\
\midrule
R$^2$                   & 0.03       & 0.01       & 0.03       & 0.02       \\
N                       & 262        & 264        & 262        & 267        \\
\bottomrule
\multicolumn{5}{l}{\tiny{\footnotesize $^{***}p<0.01$; $^{**}p<0.05$; $^{*}p<0.1$}}
\end{tabular}
\end{small}
\caption{The effect of temporary disenfranchisement. Presented estimates capture the results from DiD-specifications comparing groups 1 and 2 across waves1 and 3. Based on a birthdates sample with bandwidth 50.}
\label{table:coefficients}
\end{center}
\end{table}
